> Which also makes me question about the effectiveness of lockdowns.
Lockdowns are definitively, absolutely effective in curbing spread. It is backed by solid evidence of reduction is spread in places where lockdown was implemented, AND we have logical scientific reasoning to explain why. The only debatable aspect is whether they are the best solution, given all the trade-offs. And that is a difficult choice. But given no other solutions, if you can afford a lockdown, it is the right first step while you figure out other options.
Countries have been able to avoid a lockdown if they have sufficient quarantine facilities, contact tracing and hospital capacity. But in the absence of these, lockdown is the most effective way to navigate this.
Lockdowns are definitively, absolutely effective in curbing spread. It is backed by solid evidence of reduction is spread in places where lockdown was implemented, AND we have logical scientific reasoning to explain why. The only debatable aspect is whether they are the best solution, given all the trade-offs. And that is a difficult choice. But given no other solutions, if you can afford a lockdown, it is the right first step while you figure out other options.
Countries have been able to avoid a lockdown if they have sufficient quarantine facilities, contact tracing and hospital capacity. But in the absence of these, lockdown is the most effective way to navigate this.